Things We Learned in the 2008 NBA Finals

The 2008 Finals were amazing. They had an amazing match-up of the two premiere franchises over the history of the league, and the two best teams in their respective conferences this season.

It was a classic "great offense versus great defense" series. It had stirring come-backs, controversial injuries, surprising heroes, and for all us Lakers and/or Kobe haters, a most satisfying finish. (Yes, I have a strong anti-Lakers and anti-Kobe bias...I admit it.)

It also was quite informational. We learned the mathematically impossible could actually happen, the experts know no more than anyone else, and recent popular debates were even more ridiculous than we thought they were.

1) Sam Cassell is a mathematical impossibility

Math instructors nationwide looked on in awe and disbelief as again and again every mathematical theory long held to be an unalterable truth was dispelled as Fast Sam cranked up five shots within the first four times he touched the ball. The blur of motion as he touched the rock only to send it arcing towards the rim.

When asked if he was aware the traditional point guard role included occasional passes, Sam replied, "I passed it to them through the rim." Fortunately for Boston, the needed offense in the first couple of games and that is certainly something he is happy to provide.

2) Expert is easy to define: An Ex is a has-been and a spurt is jut a drip under pressure

Prior to the series a huge number of experts calmly predicted LA to win in anywhere from four to six games. Few and far between were those who predicted a Boston victory.

Of course, hind sight being 20-20, there were many signs the series might end differently: The results of the regular season games between the two, Boston's record against the Western Conference, the way Boston played in Detroit, taking two out of three.

In the end, it just demonstrates once more that the difference between the television experts and the average fan is money...the experts get paid to be wrong.

3) Bryant was not and is not the greatest ever.

Despite my anti-Bryant bias, even I will admit he is unquestionably one of the two best players in the NBA today. It would be tough to choose between he and LeBron James at the moment, though it also can not be argued Bryant has done it longer and more consistently. Certainly no team would refuse either player.

But these Finals reinforced the fact that, as good as he is, Bryant is not in the class of the best players ever.

For example, one cannot imagine a Jordan or Russell led team giving up a 24 point lead, or a Jordan being held to fewer points than shots multiple times. There were exceptions, but far too much of the time he was forced into contested jump shots and kept away from the basket.

It is a sign of his talent that he hit a number of those jumpers and there were individual quarters where he was dominant...but there were entire halves where he was a non-factor.

I have already argued that statistically he does not belong in the conversation

You're currently logged into Facebook

Do you want to share your Bleacher Report activity on Facebook?